Originally Posted by bshanteau

In every state of the Union, bicyclists have all the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles. It is you who is the ardent, if not strident denier of those rights for all bicyclists who wish to exercise them.

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

Really? How am I or anyone else at BF denying your rights and duties as a bicyclist? By not having an epiphany from the brilliance of your rhetorical questions? By not storming the ramparts of the legislative halls to enact whatever you and your bicycle traffic engineer comrades deem necessary? Who exactly in the real world is denying your bicycling rights?

Originally Posted by bshanteau

No. It was a rhetorical question. Again, from Wikipedia:
...In simple terms, it is a question asked more to produce an effect than to summon an answer.

Originally Posted by bshanteau

I hope you were trying to be cute, skye, because your comment could be construed as nasty.

Originally Posted by John Forester

The last paragraph is entirely false. Cyclists were drivers of vehicles in all states until about 1940. They did not need to have any different rights spelled out. Do motorists need to have special rights spelled out? Of course not; the rights come with the designation of driver. In 1944 the Uniform Vehicle Code removed cyclists from the class of drivers, making them second-class roadway users whose prime duty was to stay out of the way of motorists: "shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction." Did this mean that cyclists' one remaining right was to move left when overtaking a slower vehicle? In other words, did we have only the rights listed (overtaking), or did we retain the other rights of drivers, such as moving left in preparation for a left turn? Opinions differed, but the general public and the police assumed that cyclists did not have any other rights of drivers and were limited to the side of the road. As I said, opinions differed. When the left turning question arose in California in 1972, the California Attorney General issued two opposite opinions on the subject, under exactly the same number. The first said that cyclists had to turn left from the curb lane. The second, a week or so later, and issued under the same number as if the first had never been issued, said cyclists had the right to move left to prepare for a left turn.

In my service on the California Statewide Bicycle Committee (8 motorists appointed by the government, 1 cyclist), I started out by pointing out the items in which the restrictive law violated the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, hoping to provide sufficient causes for repealing the restrictive law. I failed, because I was never told that the purpose of the committee was to work out ways to restrict cyclists further. But the result was that, for only those items I had mentioned, cyclists were allowed to operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Was this a new statement of their rights? Those who initially believed that cyclists had few or no rights claimed so. But those who believed that cyclists really had the rights of drivers of vehicles, such as my associates, saw the new list as another statement of restrictions, modified only to preserve cyclists' second-class status against legal challenge. That California list of exceptions was adopted into the Uniform Vehicle Code and, from there, into most state codes.

Originally Posted by John Forester

Your own account of what you learned shows what you did not learn. You learned that bicycles were considered vehicles (which may or may not be accurate, depending on the state's wording) but you did not learn that cyclists were prohibited from operating as drivers of vehicles by being required to stay as far right as practicable, whatever that might mean. They gave you rights, and then took most of them away, and you failed to notice that.

Originally Posted by Rollfast

NOW...to address Mr. Forester's contention that somehow "rights" were taken away from cyclists.

This is absolute bull. The nature of traffic has changed dramatically since your 1940 date of contention. Neither of my parents were even born then and expecting a de facto, unwavering 'right' in the face of these drastic changes is missing the point, bigtime.

I have stated it time and time again here that the correct way to get there alive and intact is to pay attention and accomodate all traffic. It is not an equalitarian SQUALL.

It is simply something that should be common sense and without question. Your parents were telling you this when they told you to "look left, right and left again" before crossing the street and they gave you the backbone on which to build your personal safety.

Accidents are tragic, yet they cannot be dismissed, you cannot assume that everyone is on your page and therefore prevention and defensiveness are absolutely necessary. Nothing is guaranteed. Sorrow is a fact of life, no matter how much you work to prevent it.

I ask only that you dismiss this perceived 'loss of rights'. You are part of many, not the only.

Originally Posted by Rollfast

Okay, I will let you fight the Subarus in mano a mano Deathmatch action.

A car is a vehicle.

A bicycle is also a vehicle.

A bicycle is NOT EQUAL to a car.

Every vehicle must be operated in accordance with it's capabilities.

You need to keep this in consideration no matter which vehicle you are operating.

You do NOT have the same capabilities as a car and should always operate in concordance and cooperation with traffic around you.

You must NEVER operate a bike assuming that you are seen or other vehicles can accomodate your traveling needs.

Traffic regulations were created to allow all users to access roads and use the transportation of their choice.

You never expect another motorist to just stop and let you turn your car, you YIELD to them and turn when it is safe to. You do the same as a cyclist.

Most people know what a bike lane is and are neither ignorant nor belligerent, however, they are bombarded with more distractions and traffic volume/density than ever in many cases. Why this topic continues to come up and not the need to be a defensive cyclist I cannot fathom.

It is not realistic nor practical to argue with an automobile and the argument is ludicrous on it's own subjection. It is not US VS. THEM, it IS all of us working together for safety and practical transportation.

Originally Posted by bshanteau

Which law are you referring to? Yes, Maryland's FRAP law has that phrase, but I was referring to the case where the lane is too narrow for a vehicle and a bicycle to travel safely side by side, which is one of the exceptions in Maryland's FRAP law.

When one of the exceptions to the FRAP law applies, then the entire FRAP law does not apply and, since bicyclists have the same rights and duties as drivers of vehicles, the "Special rule for slow-moving traffic" law (actually its Slow Vehicle Law), applies for bicyclists traveling slower than other traffic:
On a laned road, the first part of that "or" clause applies.

Originally Posted by bshanteau

Are you thinking of Maryland's "Minimum speed regulation" law? It applies only to drivers of MOTOR vehicles, NOT to drivers of non-motorized vehicles or to bicyclists. Thus there is no law preventing drivers of non-motorized vehicles or bicyclists from traveling at less than the speed limit.

Originally Posted by John Forester

I have never argued that cars and bikes are equal. That part of your argument is irrelevant. My position, the legal position, is that both cyclists and motorists are drivers of vehicles and have equal status in that respect. That, of course, is ignoring the anti-cyclist discriminatory side-of-the-road laws enacted by motorists for their own selfish interest, regardless of the danger and other deleterious aspects these impose on cyclists.

You assert that cyclists "should always operate in concordance and cooperation with traffic around you." Well, so do I; traffic works best when all roadway users operate according to the same rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. I have never held otherwise.

Rollfast claims that: "Traffic regulations were created to allow all users to access roads and use the transportation of their choice." That statement is entirely false. The right of the public to use the public roads goes back to the common law of medieval England. The traffic regulations were created to arrange that that right to use the public roads is exercised safely and equitably.

However, Rollfast argues that cyclists must not operate by cooperating with other drivers in orderly traffic operation. Here are his words: "You must NEVER operate a bike assuming that you are seen or other vehicles can accommodate your traveling needs." In short, Rollfast positively argues that cyclists are second-class (or even lower) roadway users who have to sneak around, subservient to motorists, lest they be rolled over and crushed. That is a clear expression of the cyclist-inferiority phobia whose public implementation I have opposed for forty years.